Learning at the Edge (Part 2): Scholar-practitioner Reflections on Boundaries

Learning at the Edge – Part II

Learning at the Edge (Part 2):

Scholar-practitioner Reflections on Boundaries

Alice MacGillivray, Proprietor www.4KM.net

3361 Rolston Crescent

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

V8Z 4P2

1 250 479-7470

[email protected]


Alice MacGillivray, BGS, MA, MA, Doctoral Candidate, is proprietor of a consulting

company where her work focuses on knowledge generation and sharing as elements of

organizational development and change. Alice directed the design and development of

knowledge management programs at Royal Roads University for three years, where she now

teaches as an associate faculty member.

Her research interests include distributed leadership and the applicability of concepts

from the natural world to organizations. Alice has presented papers at several conferences

including McMaster World Congress on Intellectual Capital, the Canadian Association of Law

Librarians, the Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education E-Learn

Conference, the Society for the Social Studies of Science and the GeoTec Global Conference.

A sample of her publications follows:

Goran, W. and A. MacGillivray. (2003). Exploring Intersections Between GIS and

knowledge management. Feature Article: GEOWorld Magazine. MacGillivray, A. (2003). Knowledge management education at Royal Roads University.

Competitive Intelligence Magazine, v.6, no.4. MacGillivray, A. (2002). Educating for competence. Financial Management Institute

Journal, v.14, no.1, pp 7-10. MacGillivray, A. (2000). Using business intelligence tools to facilitate front line priority-

setting in a public sector organization. Victoria: Royal Roads University thesis.


Learning at the edge (Part II): Scholar-practitioner reflections on boundaries

Abstract

This is the second segment of a two-part paper, which attempts to strengthen a bridge

between theoretical and practical worlds by bringing information from organizations to

complexity theorists. It is written as a boundary object to encourage further research, dialogue

and conclusions. This paper focuses on one theme from complexity and new science literature:

the theme of boundaries. A relatively new methodology, phenomenography, is used as an

inductive method of inquiry to explore qualitatively different ways in which published authors and

graduate students understand the related concepts of boundary, edge and periphery. These

authors’ unsolicited views of the boundary concept ranged from micro to macro in scale, and

from detached observation to personal activism in nature. This study suggests that boundaries

are important areas for learning, growth, risk, and observation and repair of systemic

challenges, and that they deserve further iterative or collaborative research in relation to

complexity thinking.

Learning at the Edge – Part II p.1

Introduction

This is the second part of a two-part paper, designed to bring ideas from organizations to

complexity theorists for discussion.

In doing this research, I have made the following assumptions:

1. Invitations from complexity experts, such as those quoted in Part 1 of this paper,

are indicators of a more general desire to learn from, and help, practitioners.

2. The topic of boundaries is important to theorists and practitioners working in

complex environments.

3. E:CO is a journal in which scholar-practitioner dialogue can occur in threads,

which might span several issues.

4. This two-part paper, which compiles and synthesizes practical boundary-related

experience, can act as a boundary object to catalyze dialogue.

In other words, this paper responds to invitations from theorists to contribute to

conversations about applications of complexity thinking, and invites theorists to further our

understanding of boundary work.

Phenomenography is an interdisciplinary research method (Osteraker, 2002) that

reveals qualitatively different ways of understanding concepts such as boundaries, peripheries

and edges (Bowden and Walsh, 2000). I chose it because the differences revealed could lead to

insights about complexity science vs. systems thinking perspectives, accurate and flawed

assumptions about complexity, or ways of understanding boundaries that are appropriate for

different types of environments.

Part 1 of this paper explored ways in which published authors thought of, and applied,

the related concepts of boundaries, edges and peripheries. It concluded that boundaries have

been an important topic in disciplines such as ecology for decades, and the emergence of new

sciences and economies has catalyzed awareness of the importance of boundary work. The


authors noted the distinctive characteristics of boundary areas including diversity and risk. The

boundary contexts they described ranged from micro to macro, and approaches to work with

boundaries ranged from awareness to advocacy.

The data for Part 2 of this paper were unpublished writings of professionals studying in

Royal Roads University’s knowledge management (KM) program, and more specifically,

learners’ journals from the course about communities of practice.

Background: the program and course

Context about the university, program and course situates the research participants’

experiences and perceptions of boundaries.

Learners in Royal Roads University’s knowledge management programs were typically

mid-late career professionals who brought significant expertise and education to the learning

community. The program framework was depicted graphically as intersecting, open, human

structural and social systems, all nested within a larger environmental context (MacGillivray,

2001). The foundation courses provided background in systems thinking and complexity.

Cohorts of learners moved through programs together.

The final online course focused on communities of practice (CoP): “groups of people

who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their

understanding and knowledge of this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger, et al.,

2002: 4). These groups typically span administrative and geographic boundaries.

This course began with an intense exploration of socially-based learning compared and

contrasted with a range of learning theories and philosophies. We also looked at familiar groups

against descriptors for various group types.

However, it would be hypocritical to have a conventional, sequential, linear course

design to study emergent, self-governing groups engaged in dynamic knowing and learning.

So, the overall course design was unconventional. In “Not only the lonely: Implications of


‘social’ online activities for higher education”, Fraser and Greenhalgh noted that there were few

post-secondary examples of on-line collaborative learning (MacGillivray and Smith, 2004). In

this case, our deliberate under-designing of the course facilitated emergent learning within the

boundary of a graduate for-credit offering. Learners in the program told me that, in contrast to a

transmission-model, I created spaces in which learning was catalyzed through various kinds of

interaction.

The twelve weeks of study within the larger program could be described as a zone of

adaptive creativity. Elements of stability included the social capital of the learner cohort and a

familiar e-learning platform. Potentially chaotic elements were introduced; for example, learners

experienced new platforms, spent time in a larger virtual community (the workshop), and

designed their major assignments: all boundary crossing or spanning activities. The course

description on the public website (MacGillivray, 2001) described the nature of the design work

as “the collaboration and knowledge sharing of two learning initiatives with leading experts:

North America's first graduate program in knowledge management at Royal Roads University,

and North America's first communities of practice workshop...” Workshops with participants

from many countries and professions were hosted by CPsquare. John D. Smith from CPsquare

joined the Royal Roads discussions to pave the way for transition to the workshop, and stepping

out of my role as course instructor, I mentored participants in the workshops, making the

boundary between the two spaces more permeable.

In summary, the course design reflected complexity principles, and had many implicit

boundary, edge and periphery elements. Although this made it an interesting forum for research

of perceptions of boundaries, the boundary concept was not part of the course in any explicit

way.

In contrast with the published authors in Part1I of this paper, these authors were working

together in a common learning environment. Like the published authors, learners knew their

work would be read, but the context was different. Although I had worked with them for months


and perceived the course climate to be open and trusting, they knew I would be reading their

journals in reference to course competencies.

Research Approach

This is a qualitative, inductive study to provide data for further research and refinement

of theory.

As with Part 1, phenomenographic inquiry was chosen for its potential to highlight

diversity and to encourage interdisciplinary dialogue amongst academics and practitioners. The

research process diagram is repeated in Figure 1. When analysing the data for Part 2, I

attempted to ignore ways of understanding boundaries that had emerged in Part 1 of the

research, and to treat the journals as a fresh source of potentially new perspectives. Unlike

phenomenology, this method does not dig into psychological contexts behind perceptions. Also,

phenomenology strives for understanding, whereas phenomenography strives for understanding

differences in order to effect improvements, in this case with complexity and systems thinking

about boundaries.

[Figure 1 about here]

Research Phases

Every learning journal from three offerings of the course was analyzed in its entirety,

qualitatively and with descriptive statistics (see Table 2). A few quotes were drawn from

assignments. Journals were selected because they were relatively private, informal and candid,

in contrast to the polished work in Part 1. Learning journals were places for reflection,

unlearning and planning in relation to course competencies. In reading these streams of


consciousness, one witnessed the experiences of pools, eddies, standing waves, portages and

rescues, which might not be visible otherwise. Individuals wrestled with priorities, identities and

related boundaries in times of personal, workplace and family crises, details of which are not

revealed in this paper.

The research plan was approved by ethical review groups in two universities, and

participants granted permission for use of quotes.

Conceptualization of Boundaries: Designers

In an AACE conference paper (MacGillivray and Smith, 2004), the course/workshop

designers used four natural science metaphors to describe their collaborative design process:

hybrid vigor, mutualism, the selfish gene and morphic resonance. The two that are explicitly

boundary-related are summarized below:

Hybrid vigor: Beware of the Drive for Efficiency:

Hybrid vigor is a phenomenon of intersections, describing the improved strength, health

or yield that can occur with crossbred plants and animals. “If you have two members of a gene

family but expressing themselves in two different tissues,” explained Rutgers geneticist Hugo

Dooner, “then a crossbred plant could contain both of the genes and may therefore be better

off” (Blumberg, 2002). This may be particularly true under stressful environmental conditions.

The benefits of crossbreeding come from genetic diversity and redundancy (a negative concept

in business). John Seeley Brown (Ark Group conversation, 2004) commented that, “Most of the

really interesting stuff within an organisation is happening on the edge…” MacGillivray and

Smith encouraged healthy degrees of redundancy and diversity in the overlapping learning

environments.

Mutualism: Diagnosing Intelligent Wholes


In parasitic relationships, both parties ideally survive, but one benefits at the other’s

expense. With mutualism, neither party is hurt and one or both benefit. For example, the

bobtailed squid, Euprymna scolopes, hunts after sunset, and if it were not for its relationship

with a tiny organism—Vibrio fischeri—predators would spot the squid’s silhouette from below.

The bioluminescent Vibrio colonize the squid and the squid controls the amount of light emitted.

Their combined efforts help both to thrive (Graf, 2002). As designers, we understood the course

as a product of the intimate relationship between learning experiences in the university and

workshop environments. The Royal Roads course hosted and enveloped the workshop, yet the

workshop also lived independently with no Royal Roads involvement.

Conceptualization of Boundaries: Learners

This section of the paper uses a small sample of the data in quotes to illustrate different

ways of understanding boundaries. Often the boundary concept is embedded and described

using other terms.

When learners created their major assignments and chose competencies for

assessment, they needed to consider—and often negotiate—boundaries with each other for

collaboration, with organizations or clients for applied research, and with their families for time

and effort. The following journal entry is one of many that describe the transition to this complex

learning environment:

I started the week getting angry with myself because I couldn’t make sense of the

assignments and the spaces. Then I slowed down and worked through the assignments

and matched them with what I was doing at work. Thank you, [Name] for the phone

conversation. I finally realized that I could work on a number of assignments at once and

mix and match across them as I wanted to. I realized that you have set this course up to

be open and very free-flowing and we can bring all the different aspects of ourselves to

the assignments and the discussions as we want. It’s sort of like Duh! This is what you


have been saying all along but I let the new spaces and all the possibilities overwhelm

me. Now I get it and I have started to try and knit it all together in a way that works for

me (although I have a feeling it will all come unbound again when we join the bigger CoP

space).

By analyzing all of the journal entries using Atlas.ti software, I found that patterns

gradually emerged. Research participants conceptualized boundaries (explicitly and implicitly) in

four ways: some focused on one approach; others emphasized several. These ways are

labelled the Shape Shifter, Architect, Harvester and Ethnographer.

A. Work with one’s own identity and boundaries—the Shape shifter

Shape shifters saw boundaries as something personal and something to be managed.

They planned consciously, and sometimes used auto-ethnography to note changes they had

experienced, for example, “I have fundamentally shifted my views of KM since I began the

course, from managing artifacts to managing flows.” Shape shifting actions included coping

(e.g., managing boundaries around multiple identities competing for time) and testing changes

(reminiscent of work by athletes). Often the inside/outside “belonging” dynamic was at play.

This was the most common primary orientation, adopted by fourteen individuals.

The multidirectional and emergent nature of learning was a regular theme, as seen in

entries such as: “Our discussion time with [Guest Name] helped me bring different themes

together from my life and made me realize the value of communities.”

Metaphor helped to describe boundary-related transitions, for example, “Looking back to

the first morning at RRU, when we introduced ourselves and outlined the reasons that led us to

the RRU KM course. I seem to remember talking about a door that was a little ajar, I sensed

there was something beyond it, but I didn’t know what it was and I was wanting to find out. Well,

this course opened that door and let me step beyond it into the world of KM. Of course, what

was beyond was in fact a large hallway with lots more doors…”


Many entries described shifts in how people positioned themselves in the model used for

analysis. In this case, experiential learning led to a shift in orientation from peripheries towards

cores: “I also believe that taking this course has encouraged me to be more than a lurker in

some online communities and take the next step to demonstrate my commitment to these

communities…”

Sometimes a shape-shifter comment would spawn responses from others. This is a

response to a learner from an expert in the field, talking about confidence in spanning the

scholar-practitioner divide: “Trust in one's experience, [Name]. What you are saying is quite

interesting because I personally thought that you had a lot to contribute to the session (for those

reading, I too was at the session that [Name] attended) because of your extensive practical

experience with building communities and with mergers. You knew more about that than many

of the attendees, me in particular. That is why I was at times trying to pull you into the

conversation and I hope you did not mind that. I guess the whole Harvard thing and the way

people talk there can be intimidating.”

Several comments showed how individuals worked to make boundaries more permeable

in order to achieve some goal: “From what I have seen thus far, the majority of the players are

from Academia - and PhDs at that. Oh well, I can throw acronyms with the best of them.”

Many shape shifter entries showed surprise or insight (often with a complexity spin): “So

we started coming up with rules of order, and agenda, the usual formalities for a MEETING. I

was quite pleased as the meeting progressed with [Name]. Her approach was so relaxed and

very informal. All of our planning went out the window.”

The following was one of many insights that influenced practice. In this case, the insight

spanned disciplinary boundaries: “I enrolled in the KM programme with a very specific goal in

mind, to acquire tools that would be helpful in research administration. While I have certainly

achieved this goal, it has been very interesting to see how the programme in general, but

particularly the issue of CoPs, has changed my perspective on what we refer to as teaching.”


Because shape shifter was such a common primary framework, there were many more

examples, some of which are captured conceptually In Figure 2/Table 1.

[Figure 2 /Table 1 about here]

Human Dimensions of Boundary Conceptualization.

B. Reframing contexts and concepts—the Architect

Architects saw boundaries as tools for framing ideas and to aid with conceptualization.

The architect paradigm might be seen as a response to John Godfrey Saxe’s plea for seeing a

bigger picture in his poem “The Blind Men and the Elephant.” Architects take ideas and turn

them on their sides, or take maps of the territory and add another layer. This view is exemplified

by the quote, “One potential way that a CoP can generate value for an organization is by

spanning boundaries: the CoP becomes the vehicle for cross-pollination.”

This was the primary orientation of seven to eight individuals.

Some architectural writings were exploratory: “I am wondering if we looked at the world

through an executive's eyes and could understand how to be effective in the paradox of

organizational structure and the flexibility and fluidity of communities of practice, what forms of

support would leverage both…?”

Many included metaphors with implicit boundary content, such as these:

The dual nature of our existence suggests we have learned to weave harmonically the

personal sense and collective sense, the flexible and the structural, the becoming and

belonging.

The vibrancy of a community can be seen as heartbeat, and that the heartbeat must

continue to beat strongly if the community is to survive. I mentioned that F2F [face-to-


face] meetings could act as a ‘defribulator’, jolting the community into action and reviving

its raison d’être.

I appreciate the focus on large-scale social learning systems and individual identity.

Opposite of ‘assimilation’ by the Borg, the social aspects of learning that Etienne speaks

of here do not negate the individual, but rather accentuate it. It provides the landscape

as a ‘relief’ through which the ‘trajectory’ of learning can be plotted.

And:

It seems to me now that communities of practice are like a forest. From a distance they

appear to be a homogeneous mass but on closer inspection it becomes clear that there

is more than one type or species. And each type thrives under certain specific

conditions.

Some spoke to tensions across boundaries: “In my own theory of organic thinking, I

believe the process of knowing occurs in our unconscious mind while the process of being

aware may occur in either or both our conscious and unconscious mind. The difference between

the outcomes of these two processes (knowing and being aware) is in fact what I consider the

substance for creating meaning,” and, “I think it was meant to happen (after reading [Name]’s

paper). In the section on ‘Becoming the Change We Envision’, the effort that I put in related to

my wanting to be the person that others envisioned me to be. This is an interesting AHA

moment for me and the utility of formalizing communities is as a learning environment - rather

than creating CoPs for the sake of information sharing.”

Others linked concepts to social or economic issues. The following example might be

seen as a fitness landscape of sorts, though looking at societal well-being rather than profit:

In the UK, Australia and even Argentina, sports clubs include facilities for several

different sports on the same grounds, along with a clubhouse and restaurant. What I

always pictured as convenience, and a sense of camaraderie and belonging. I realize

now that what I was describing was a sense of community. In creating my post on this


subject, these themes all seemed to converge, and I realize that I really wasn’t all that

crazy when I suggested this concept to friends so many years ago. I also realize that our

society seems to long for communities in many different places because our closed and

individualistic lives need them and cannot find them in so many of our daily activities.

C. Planting seeds and reaping rewards—the Harvester.

Harvesters saw boundaries as something external to manage—as part of their toolbox

and skill set. Harvesters learned something about boundaries through experience or exposure,

and stored that learning for potential application. Sometimes there is evidence of application.

This sometimes overlapped with the change agent perspective, but typically at a more concrete

and immediate level than in the work of the published authors in Part 1.

Four individuals had harvester as a primary orientation in their journals, although almost

all designed strongly harvester-oriented projects for major assignments. For example, one

learner developed and presented a proposal about the benefits of a national community of

practice through which to link specialists who do similar public safety and security work in

separate jurisdictions.

Often harvesters quoted or paraphrased something they had heard or read (note that

citations varied in quality because this was writing for reflection rather than publishing) and put

that idea, framework or theory into a work context. In this case, the learner contemplated the

process of moving from periphery to core:

“I have just finished a somewhat superficial read of ‘Situated Learning: Legitimate

Peripheral Participation’ by Lave and Wenger. I am interested in the discussion of how

learning occurs in the apprenticeship situation. There are many analogies that can be

drawn to both CoPs in my environment and to teaching in the [discipline] curriculum. The

training of residents has many of the elements of an apprenticeship. I was particularly

taken by the role of narrative in the apprenticeship. That is exactly what I often do in


daily rounds, recounting tales of how something either worked or did not work, or

mistakes that I have made in the past. It is, in fact, a very easy way of helping others to

learn.”

Many wrote about the challenges of spanning boundaries: “As part of my goals for this

course, I had hoped to be very participative in all aspects of the online communication. As

such, I’ve asked for permission from my leader at work to post in the Practice Lab a situation or

two related to some struggles we are having with some of our communities, in an attempt to get

some ideas on how we may be able to improve these particular situations, however I have not

yet received a response. I have a feeling I may not get permission as in his eyes letting people

know that things are not working 100% is a sign of weakness.”

D. Scanning the landscape—Ethnographer.

Ethnographers observed boundaries and their effects in various contexts, and made

notes about those observations. These observations were often of relatively distant places,

spaces or events, such as a look back at a workplace situation. Sometimes they were

associated with the transition from the smaller course community to the larger workshop group,

or vice versa. Some were auto-ethnographic, as persons typically accustomed to positional

authority worked to build their horizontal community-building skills, e.g., “As both the CP2

Workshop and the current course drew to a close, I noted that the personal dimension to my

posts grew and that this resulted in a corresponding increase in the candor of other people.”

Only two learners had the ethnographer as their primary orientation.

Some observations were through fresh eyes, observing something new and unfamiliar:

in this case, the CompanyCommand community from the U.S. Military Academy:

What strikes me about their site, this presentation and their views on roles of the

community leader and members is the sense of ENERGY, CARING, COACHING,

COMPASSION, INCLUSION, ACKNOWLEGEMENT, ENCOURAGEMENT, REGARD,


and INTIMACY that seems to permeate their worldview in relation to their community.

They seem to be able to cross the technical barriers of an online environment through

exhibiting these qualities (e.g. words like 'my brother' and 'rock on Ray' and 'awesome'

are used by a group leader replying to a member post).

Or:

Sometimes communities of practice seem analogous to quantum mechanics where the

very act of observing the result can change the result. How do you support something

like that?

Observations had been coalescing for years were shared with the new community:

Simplicity implies conscious action: Having swum in a sea of IT acronyms for years, I

have come to realize that it is, usually, an unconscious development - a kind of tribal

shorthand - to get to the point more quickly. Having just joined a new branch with an

intense history that I don't share, I see the same thing happen - acronyms, inferences,

in-jokes - some of which can't help but develop over time and the intensity of experience

together. I think that Dave Snowden refers to this as ‘levels of abstraction' - which get

higher as the group learns. Perhaps some 'initiation rites' put in place to help welcome

newcomers to these tribes? The secret handshake divulged? From my readings this is

something that CoPs have consciously recognized. It's not only the language but the

experiential context that is so rich and yet can be a daunting boundary. And yet without

reflecting on where we have come, it makes it difficult to share where we are. That's

something I have appreciated about being welcomed into this space. There seems to be

a lot of conscious thought about helping newbies span this boundary between those who

have experienced a lot together and those who are just dipping their toes in for the first

time.

Several observed systemic workplace boundary-related challenges:


He also wants to keep control with which members are included and keep out anyone

that is not of the [level of government] family. On one hand, I can see his point because

he wants everyone to be able to speak freely on [level of government] matters, which

you can’t do if you have non-xxx people in the room. However the original intent of this

group was to help [social justice objective].

Others related to some unanticipated impacts: “I did not foresee that my involvement

would be construed as a threat to existing empires built around knowledge silos…”

Use of Boundary-related Graphics

Another enjoyable element of the journals was the way in which several learners chose

to create graphics to depict boundary-related concepts.

An architect entry described different ways of envisioning boundaries (see Figure 3): ”I

particularly like the distinction made that learning isn’t just something that happens to an

individual in a social setting (left), but that learning happens across individuals (right). These

graphics may not be how Etienne would describe it, but it helps me.”


Learner’s Conceptual Boundary Shift: Socially Based Learning

Another architect post included Figure 4 to compare theorists’ ideas:

“Habermas’s domains of interest also resemble the Wenger’s work. Habermas lists

three types of knowledge (working, practical and emancipatory), which resembles

Wenger’s statement that identity, knowing and membership entail one another:

• ‘knowing’ resembles working knowledge— – knowing what to do


• ‘membership’ resembles practical knowledge – interacting with others

• ‘identity’ resembles emancipatory knowledge – a knowledge of self

The following figure is a generic representation of the convergence of both Habermas’s

and Wenger’s theories. The peripheral group represents newcomers in a community

(Wenger) or organic groups formed in civil society (Habermas). The core group

represents old-timers (Wenger) or the political/administrative system that controls power

(Habermas). The arrows represent the creative tension that exists in the interaction

between newcomers and old-timers in a community (Wenger) or the tensions that occur

as civil groups attempt to have their issues placed on the public agenda, followed by

resistance from the center of power (Habermas). Finally, the dotted lines that connect

each peripheral group represent the communication that is considered essential by both

theorists: communication between members for Wenger and the development of “weak

links” of communication between different communities or civil groups for Habermas.”


Graphic Synthesis of Theoretical Constructs from a Journal.

Another learner had coded journal entries using clip art in the margin. In reviewing the

material, it was interesting to note that the following post, coded as “harvester” had been coded

in the journal with his symbol for “a practical application”, which showed a handsaw cutting a

log.


I don’t know if I got that point across, but I really do appreciate the ‘coherence’ aspect. It

will be a big part of any practical implementation plan for communities of practice at

either [Company Name] or [related not for profit acronym].

Table 2 shows the relative emphasis that each learner put on a given mode of

conceptualization:

[Table 2 about here]

Four Ways of Understanding Boundaries as Described in Course Learning Journals

Reasons for the uneven distribution have not been studied. Course learning outcomes

and journal structure encouraged people to explore different perspectives, which may account

for some of the diversity within each individual. Learning style, gender and/or training/profession

may have influenced patterns of conceptualization as well.

If there has been anything predictable about this course, it has been that almost

everyone experienced phases of often intense boundary-related discomfort, and they moved

through these phases iteratively with new insights and levels of confidence. Reviews were

positive, with numerous comments along the lines of “It is the best learning experience that I

have had in my academic life (three previous degrees and a graduate certificate).”

Published authors and learning journal authors:


The differences between published and learning journal authors relates, in part, to the

informal and reflective nature of journals. As stated earlier, the published work was more

polished. It was generally more assertive and less reflective. These differences manifested

themselves in ways in which boundaries were understood. Some published authors in the

Filmmaker categories had reached firm conclusions about the nature and importance of

boundaries or their importance for future focus. Others in the change-oriented categories

identified specific applications in order to be more innovative, competitive, effective or ethical.

Learners in the ethnographer and architect categories had some common ground with the

filmmaker category, and the harvesters had the same sort of practical, applied focus as healers

and entrepreneurs. However, learners in the course were typically more exploratory and

tentative. The experiential nature of the learning, through the bridging of epistemologies was

summed up by this quote a course journal: “I am now definitely aware of the difference between

learning about a CoP and learning in a CoP…I always think of academics as learning about

something, and in some ways that is a lot easier than learning in something - for me it requires

more self confidence to do the latter.”

Conclusions

Scholars and practitioners in a wide range of disciplines are beginning to appreciate the

importance of boundaries, edges and peripheries, and there is still much to be learned about

their characteristics and related learning and management strategies. Part 2 of this two-part

paper focused on how individuals experienced boundaries in a graduate course for

professionals. The course was designed for emergent learning. Although boundary concepts

were not part of the explicit curriculum, the course design lent itself to reflection on boundaries.

These included boundaries between disciplines in a program that drew professionals from many

sectors; different epistemologies in back-to-back courses; boundaries between the Royal Roads

community and the international workshop community of the course’s virtual field trip; the gap


between the work of scholars and practitioners, and one’s own shifting boundaries of identity,

especially through the experience of transformative learning.

All of these boundaries emerged as being worthy of discussion and reflection. As with

the published authors, individuals thought about scales from micro to macro, and positioned

themselves along the spectrum from reflective to active. Despite the fact that

phenomenography—a method in which one tries to be completely open to others’ ways of

understanding—was used, journal entries often reflected complexity principles.

Graduate learners and published authors differed somewhat in how they presented their

understanding of boundaries. All the ways of conceptualising boundaries that were explored in

this two-part paper are pictured in Figure 5.


Boundary conceptualization categories (outcome space) from all sources

I don’t think the published vs. learning journal differences indicate a hierarchy in terms of

knowledge, skills or maturity as much as they indicate differences between publishers’

expectations and the intense and active learning context of the course. The shape shifter

category was the most dominant in the learner population, and shape-shifting involved

identifying, reflecting on, and managing boundaries in an individualized way. It could seem

inappropriate to reach and promote strong conclusions during a transformative period of

reflection, and Figure 5 shows the shape-shifter category as one that influences everything

below it. It is possible that differences on the vertical axis of this outcome space (Figure 5)

would blur over time.


This graphic does not map out fixed, hierarchical relationships. This may be a function

of the preliminary nature of this research or feminist biases (Hazel, et al., 1997). The author

believes that if such relationships exist, and can improve the application and value of complexity

thinking in organizations, they should be explored through further iterations or collaborations

involving complexity theorists.


Figure 1

Data Sources: Boundaries and Related Concepts

Part I

Published literature from

Ø Complexity Ø new and related sciences Ø communities of practice Ø and other literature

Unpublished writing from Royal Roads University course about communities of practice

Part II

í î

Phenomenographic analysis:

how boundaries are conceptualized

Paving the way for complexity theorists to undertake:

Phenomenographic analysis:

how boundaries are conceptualized

î í theoretical inquiry

through comparison of results


Figure 2/ Table 1

Individual(s) and identity: shifting, permeable boundaries: Examples

Larger context: Examples

Individual Royal Roads University course cohort Royal Roads cohort or learning experience Larger workshop group & learning experience Workshop learning experience Longer, more comprehensive RRU program Individual’s combined cohort and workshop experience

Individual’s workplace

Individual’s combined cohort and workshop experience

Individual’s workplace, family life, community and volunteer work

An individual’s workplace challenge The collective problem-solving work of the cohort or larger workshop community

An individual’s workplace challenge Another individual’s workplace challenge/goal Cohort’s shared experience and identity Intersecting networks from cohort members’

workplaces, communities of practice etc. Individuals’ and cohort’s perspectives & values Larger social, political, economic and

environmental landscapes.


Figure 3


Figure 4

Peripheral

group

Core

group Tension

Communication/weak links between groups


Figure 5

Reflective Active


Table 2

Percentages of Coded Quotations that Fit Each Category

for each learner indicates primary framework for viewing boundaries

Learner Code M/F Shape-

shifter Architect Harvester Ethnographer

71 F 64 36 73 M 50 25 16 9 69 F 50 33 11 6 72 F 48 29 14 10 67 M 46 33 13 8 86 F 46 46 4 4 74 F 43 33 18 7 91 M 39 32 16 13 81 M 38 19 6 25 84 M 38 31 8 23 82 M 35 12 29 24 79 F 34 26 17 23 88 F 32 26 21 21 77 F 31 15 23 31 83 M 19 69 12 70 M 34 53 3 9 89 M 32 46 11 11 87 M 17 46 8 29 75 M 28 45 3 24 85 M 25 43 2 30 92 M 38 42 10 10 68 F 5 38 48 10 80 M 19 34 38 9 78 F 20 28 36 16 90 F 16 28 34 22 76 M 16 17 26 41


References Cited

Blumberg, J. (2002). "Rutgers geneticists discover probable causes of hybrid plant vigor,"

Eurekalert (June 11).

Bowden, J. A. and Walsh, E. (2000). "Phenomenography," in J. A. Bowden (ed.), Qualitative

Research Methods Melbourne: RMIT University Press, ISBN 0 86459 019 9, pp. 154.

Graf, J. (2002). "The light-organ symbiosis of Vibrio fischeri and the hawaiian squid, Euprymna

scolopes," University of Connecticut - Department of Molecular and Cell Biology.

Hazel, E., Conrad, L. and Martin, E. (1997). "Exploring Gender and Phenomenography," Higher

Education Research & Development, ISSN 1469-8366 6: 213-226.

MacGillivray, A. (2001). "Royal Roads University Knowledge Management Program

Framework," Victoria: Royal Roads University.

MacGillivray, A. and Smith, J. D. (2004). "Genetic diversity as inspiration for instructional

design," AACE E-Learn Washington DC, pp. 6.

Osteraker, M. (2002). "Phenomenography as a research method in management research."

Saxe, J. G. "The Blind Men and the Elephant."

Wenger, E., McDermott, R. and Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice,

Boston: Harvard Business School Press, ISBN 1-57851-330-8.

Learning at the Edge (Part 2): Scholar-practitioner Reflections on Boundaries

Documents